QCJL vs. QBUF

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

QCJL (FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - July) and QBUF (Innovator Nasdaq-100 10 Buffer ETF - Quarterly) are both Nasdaq-100 funds. QCJL is actively managed, while QBUF is passively managed. Over the past year, QCJL returned 14.69% vs 11.93% for QBUF. Their correlation of 0.82 suggests significant overlap in exposure. QCJL charges 0.90%/yr vs 0.79%/yr for QBUF.

Performance

QCJL vs. QBUF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - July (QCJL) and Innovator Nasdaq-100 10 Buffer ETF - Quarterly (QBUF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QCJL achieves a 5.15% return, which is significantly higher than QBUF's 4.68% return.

QCJL

• 1D: -0.06%
• 1M: 1.24%
• YTD: 5.15%
• 6M: 5.61%
• 1Y: 14.69%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

QBUF

• 1D: -0.01%
• 1M: 0.84%
• YTD: 4.68%
• 6M: 4.57%
• 1Y: 11.93%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

QCJL vs. QBUF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
QCJL FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - July	5.15%	13.10%	4.12%
QBUF Innovator Nasdaq-100 10 Buffer ETF - Quarterly	4.68%	11.08%	5.64%

Correlation

The correlation between QCJL and QBUF is 0.74, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.74
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 23, 2024	0.82

The correlation between QCJL and QBUF has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.74 to 0.82 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

QCJL vs. QBUF — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

QCJL

QCJL Risk / Return Rank: 81
QCJL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 78
QCJL Sortino Ratio Rank: 82
QCJL Omega Ratio Rank: 84
QCJL Calmar Ratio Rank: 74
QCJL Martin Ratio Rank: 87

QBUF

QBUF Risk / Return Rank: 79
QBUF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 70
QBUF Sortino Ratio Rank: 71
QBUF Omega Ratio Rank: 80
QBUF Calmar Ratio Rank: 88
QBUF Martin Ratio Rank: 85

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

QCJL vs. QBUF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - July (QCJL) and Innovator Nasdaq-100 10 Buffer ETF - Quarterly (QBUF). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.

	QCJL	QBUF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.51	2.28	+0.23
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.67	3.20	+0.46
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.51	1.48	+0.03
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.69	5.19	-1.50
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	18.73	17.79	+0.94
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

QCJL vs. QBUF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QCJL Sharpe Ratio is 2.51, which is comparable to the QBUF Sharpe Ratio of 2.28. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QCJL and QBUF, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	QCJL	QBUF	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.51	2.28	+0.23
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.29	1.36	-0.07

Drawdowns

QCJL vs. QBUF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QCJL drawdown since its inception was -11.18%, which is greater than QBUF's maximum drawdown of -8.84%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QCJL and QBUF.

Drawdown Indicators

	QCJL	QBUF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-11.18%	-8.84%	-2.34%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.00%	-2.31%	-1.69%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.06%	-0.01%	-0.05%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.07%	-0.82%	-0.25%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.79%	0.67%	+0.12%

Volatility

QCJL vs. QBUF - Volatility Comparison

FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - July (QCJL) has a higher volatility of 0.39% compared to Innovator Nasdaq-100 10 Buffer ETF - Quarterly (QBUF) at 0.23%. This indicates that QCJL's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than QBUF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QCJL	QBUF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.39%	0.23%	+0.16%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	4.32%	3.88%	+0.44%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	5.89%	5.25%	+0.64%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	9.48%	8.47%	+1.01%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	9.48%	8.47%	+1.01%

QCJL vs. QBUF - Expense Ratio Comparison

QCJL has a 0.90% expense ratio, which is higher than QBUF's 0.79% expense ratio.

Dividends

QCJL vs. QBUF - Dividend Comparison

Neither QCJL nor QBUF has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QCJL and QBUF in my portfolio?

QCJL and QBUF have a correlation of 0.74, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, QCJL or QBUF?

QCJL has higher volatility (0.39%) compared to QBUF (0.23%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QCJL dropped -11.18% vs QBUF's -8.84%.

Which ETF is better, QCJL or QBUF?

On 1-year performance, QCJL leads with 14.69% vs 11.93% for QBUF. On fees, QBUF is cheaper at 0.79% per year. On volatility, QBUF has been the lower-risk option at 0.23%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, QCJL or QBUF?

Over the 1-year period, QCJL has performed better with a 14.69% return vs 11.93%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QCJL or QBUF?

QBUF is cheaper with a 0.79% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for QCJL.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, QCJL or QBUF?

QCJL and QBUF have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between QCJL and QBUF?

They also come from different issuers: First Trust and Innovator. Their fees differ too: 0.90% for QCJL and 0.79% for QBUF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QCJL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.51 vs 2.28), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.